alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Steven D. Bonham, certify that:

1.I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Unify Corporation;

2.Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5.The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

| | /s/ STEVEN D. BONHAM               
| | -----------------------------------
| | Steven D. Bonham                   
| | Chief Financial Officer            
| | (Principal Financial and Accounting
| | Officer)                           

Dated: March 15, 2007



---
EXHIBIT 32.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Itec Environmental Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Michael E. Hofmann, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.


/s/ Michael E. Hofmann
----------------------
Michael E. Hofmann
Chief Financial Officer

February 26, 2004
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 32.02

                                 CERTIFICATION
                   PURSUANT TO 18 UNITED STATES CODE SS. 1350

The undersigned hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
Second Quarter ended June 30, 2005 of Fisher Scientific International Inc. (the
"Company") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in such
report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

                                /s/ Kevin P. Clark
                                -----------------------------
                                Kevin P. Clark
                                Chief Financial Officer
                                Date:  August 4, 2005
NUMBER 13-20-00083-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________

DALE GENE MCGUYER, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 220th District Court

of Bosque County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Perkes

On January 24, 2020, appellant filed a notice of appeal by and through his attorney. 

This appeal was transferred to this Court from the Tenth Court of Appeals by order of the 

Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.220(a). Counsel for appellant 

subsequently filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and the trial court granted the motion. 

On March 2, 2020, this Court abated the appeal and ordered the trial court to determine 

whether appellant desired to prosecute this appeal and whether appellant was entitled to 
2

a court-appointed attorney.

This Court received and reviewed the trial court's supplemental clerk’s and 

reporter’s records which reflect the appellant does not wish to proceed with the appeal 

after being advised he may be entitled to court-appointed counsel.

Accordingly, this case is hereby REINSTATED. Although no written motion has 

been filed in compliance with Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, 

based upon the evidence at the hearing clearly indicating appellant does not want to 

continue his appeal, we conclude that good cause exists to suspend the operation of Rule 

42.2(a) in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2. Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal.

GREGORY T. PERKES

Justice 

Do not publish. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 

Delivered and filed the

30th day of April, 2020.
#### Earl Ernest MILLER, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12565.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

March 19, 1958.

*377Charles W. Stubbs, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

POWELL, Judge.

Earl Ernest Miller was charged in the district court of Pottawatomie County with the crime of operating a motor vehicle upon a public highway of Oklahoma while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, second and subsequent offense; was convicted, but the jury being unable to agree upon the punishment to be assessed, left that to the court, who fixed the penalty at a fine of $100 and imprisonment in the State Penitentiary for one year.

Counsel for the plaintiff in error filed petition in error and case-made in this court on December 3, 1957, the last day of the six months statutory period for filing. A brief was due to be filed on January 3, 1958, but to date no brief has been filed, and no one appeared to represent defendant when the case came on for oral argument, after regular assignment, on March 12, 1958. Sisk v. State, 97 Okl.Cr. 229, 261 P.2d 629; Stephens v. State, 96 Okl.Cr. 230, 252 P.2d 182; McDaniel v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 311, 245 P.2d 771; Connelly v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 370, 236 P.2d 278.

We have carefully examined the record. The evidence by two highway patrolmen was that defendant was intoxicated when arrested on U. S. Highway 270, one and three-fourths miles west of Shawnee, for a traffic offense. An intoximeter test made by chemist P. L. Ward showed a blood alcohol reading of .31 per cent by weight. It was also shown by the court clerk of Caddo County that defendant had previously been convicted in case No. 8976 in the county court of Caddo County of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.

Defendant testified, and while denying that he was intoxicated, admitted the conviction in Caddo County, as well as a number of convictions in other counties on charges of drunken driving.

We find no fundamental error in the record, and in accordance with the uniform holdings of this court, must and do affirm the verdict and judgment appealed from.

BRETT, P. J., and NIX, J., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of E Com Ventures, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending May 3, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Michael W. Katz, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

By: /S/ Michael W. KatzMichael W. KatzPresident and Chief Executive OfficerJune 17, 2008
# C_2020137EN.01004302.xml

| 27.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 137/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137/43

---

Order of the President of the Court of 17 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia — Spain) — Agencia Estatal de la Administración Tributaria v RK

(Case C-85/19) (1)

(2020/C 137/62)

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.

---
# C_2018436EN.01005602.xml

| 3.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 436/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 436/56

---

Action brought on 25 September 2018 — CA Consumer Finance v ECB

(Case T-578/18)

(2018/C 436/80)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: CA Consumer Finance (Massy, France) (represented by: A. Champsaur and A. Delors, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul, on the basis of Articles 256 and 263 TFEU, Decision ECB-SSM-2018-FRCAG-76 adopted by the ECB on 16 July 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, on the basis of Articles 256 and 263 TFEU, Decision ECB-SSM-2018-FRCAG-76 adopted by the ECB on 16 July 2018;

| — | order the ECB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the ECB to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law which are, in essence, identical to those relied on in Case T-576/18, Crédit agricole v ECB.

---
Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries List (as of 12/31/2009)



|                                                            |  |                                             
|----------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------
|Name:                                                       |  | Percent Owned by SST:                       
|SST RG, LLC                                                 |  | SST-100% sole membership interests          
|SST Japan K.K.                                              |  | 100% owned by SST                           
|Silicon Storage Technology Limited (UK)                     |  | 100% owned by SST                           
|SST Communications Corporation                              |  | 100% owned by SST                           
|SST Communications, Ltd.                                    |  | 100% owned by SST Communications Corporation
|SST International Limited                                   |  | 100% owned by SST                           
|SST International Limited 1                                 |  | 100% owned by SST International Limited     
|SST International Limited 2                                 |  | 100% owned by SST International Limited     
|SST International Limited 3                                 |  | 100% owned by SST International Limited     
|SSTI Taiwan Ltd.                                            |  | 100% owned by SST International Limited     
|SST Korea Ltd.                                              |  | Owned by SST International Limited          
|SST International Macao Commercial Offshore Company Limited |  | 100% owned by SST International Limited     
|SST China Holding Ltd.                                      |  | 100% owned by SST International Limited     
|SST China Ltd.                                              |  | 100% owned by SST China Holding Limited     
|Silicon Storage Technology Taiwan Ltd.                      |  | 100% owned by SST International Limited     
|SST Singapore Pte. Ltd.                                     |  | 100% owned by SST International Limited
**EXHIBIT32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Ibis Technology Corporation (the *“Company”*) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 (the *“Report”*), I, Charles M. McKenna, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)  The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company

Dated: March 26, 2007
| /s/ ***Charles M. McKenna,  Ph.D.***  | *** *** |
|---------------------------------------|--------------|
| Charles M. McKenna, Ph.D.             |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
# C_2019238EN.01000301.xml

| 15.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 238/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 238/3

---

Appeal brought on 29 November 2018 by Volkswagen AG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 19 September 2018 in Case T-623/16, Volkswagen AG v EUIPO

(Case C-744/18 P)

(2019/C 238/03)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Volkswagen AG (represented by: F. Thiering and L. Steidle, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

By order of 21 May 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

---
**EXHIBIT 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-33708, 333-36556,333-83934, 333-100337, 333-100399, 333-100400, 333-101041, 333-105060, 333-107191, 333-107776,333-107777, 333-108560, 333-109593, 333-112783, 333-118687, 333-120548, 333-124318, 333-127727,333-128186, 333-130928, and 333-133435 on Form S-3 and Nos. 33-34451, 33-53010, 33-65061,333-06503, 333-06505, 333-06507, 333-06511, 333-90323, 333-31294, 333-55068, 333-61822, 333-62604,333-74890, 333-96663, 333-104532, 333-104533, 333-105059, 333-107778, 333-112514, 333-115638,333-115639, 333-126571, and 333-126576 on Form S-8 of our report dated March 19, 2007, relating tothe 2006 consolidated financial statements of Zix Corporation and subsidiaries appearing in thisAnnual Report on Form 10-K of Zix Corporation and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31,2006./s/ WHITLEY PENN LLPDallas, Texas
January 9, 1998

19911

#### State v. Hance

Affirmed
#### William BANKS, Appellant, v. Olin *G.*BLACKWELL, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Alcatraz, California, Appellee.

No. 18394.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

Nov. 22, 1963.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 13, 1963.

*813William R. Conklin, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.

Cecil F. Poole, U. S. Atty., and Jerrold M. Ladar, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.

Before ORR, MERRILL and BROWNING, Circuit Judges.

ORR, Circuit Judge.

Appellant was convicted in the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on June 8, 1953, for a violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2114. He filed an informal notice of appeal to the Seventh Circuit. In his so called notice of appeal he asked for the appointment of counsel on appeal. The notice of appeal was filed late, but the Seventh Circuit excused the delay and permitted the appeal to stand. Appellant was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis.

While the appeal was pending and before the Seventh Circuit acted on his request for the appointment of counsel, appellant voluntarily and of his own motion dismissed the appeal.

Appellant’s next move was to file a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, to correct his sentence. This motion was voluntarily withdrawn. Appellant then moved the Seventh Circuit to reinstate his appeal. This motion was denied on the ground that the appeal had been dismissed on the request of appellant.

Appellant again sought relief under Section 2255, alleging that the indictment under which he had been convicted was fatally defective. This motion was denied in the district court, Banks v. United States, 140 F.Supp. 837 (S.D.Ind. 1956), and the denial was affirmed by the Seventh Circuit, 239 F.2d 409 (7th Cir.), cert. denied 353 U.S. 960, 77 S.Ct. 868, 1 L.Ed. 911 (1957).

Appellant then filed a third motion under Section 2255, this time claiming that the instructions in his case had been faulty. This motion was denied, and the denial affirmed by the Seventh Circuit, Banks v. United States, 287 F.2d 374 (7th Cir.), cert. denied 366 U.S. 939, 81 S.Ct. 1668, 6 L.Ed.2d 850 (1961).

On November 21, 1962, appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Northern District of California, he being at that time incarcerated in Alcatraz Prison, situate in the Northern District of California. He alleged that he was deprived of a constitutional right in that he was denied the assistance of counsel on appeal. The district court dismissed the petition. We affirm its order. The record discloses that the contention made by appellant has not been submitted to the sentencing court as required by 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255.

Appellant contends that Section 2255 does not apply where the alleged denial of constitutional right occurred in the course of proceedings in a court of appeals rather than in a district court. We did not so hold in Williams v. United States, 307 F.2d 366 (9 Cir. 1963), as appellant suggests. There is no such limitation in the language of Section 2255, and we see no reason for reading it into the statute by implication.

The order of the District Court of the Northern District of California, Southern Division, dismissing the petition is affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**— Certification of Chief Financial Officer
**CERTIFICATION**
I, James E. Dixon, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q of SBS Technologies,Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
February 13, 2004    /S/ James E. DixonJames E. Dixon*Executive Vice President,Chief Financial Officerand Treasurer*